Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.

[Aussie Digger]

I agree US has formidable ASM defences but do you think US would enter persian gulf with its ships and tried to secure oil shipin .... less likely .. no matter the skillfull defences sea mines and mobile ASM lounchers poses great threat. And to even close Hormuz straight for a month would be Iran success because of skyrocketing oil price that would make cost of the war hudge.

I never said they DIDN'T pose a threat. But laying mines is an obvious activity (check the numbers of Iraqi boats that were caught trying during GW2). I don't understand WHY Iran will be anymore successful than Iraq at it, particularly when Iran won't be able to air or submarine deploy them, just like Iraq couldn't...

The US (and others including Australia) is already there protecting against such things anyway. It's known as the MiF (Maritime Interception Force) the addition of several extra Carrier Battle Groups will only enhance it's capability.

Do you think Navy ships only fire SAM's and TLAM's when on strike operations and carry out no other function?

I think you can find all sorts of Iranian made weapons in Iraq today so little or none has being done to secure the border. Iran has hudge border with Iraq and thats something you can not control so easily .. and best evidence of that is Iranian weapons killing US troops in Iraq. Because of that I have no reason to belive US would in event of war menaged somehow to close boreder for good. Metis-E/Kornet/igla-S would at least find itself path to Iraq in great numbers ... and that would mean massacre.

Plenty is being done to secure ALL the borders of Iraq. Yes I admit, Iranian weapons are getting through. I don't see a massive increase in such being either possible or likely however.

I did not say Iranian army would last long. of course it wouldnt. But Iranians are not preparing itself for conventional but asymetric warfare. Witch means ne methods of dealing with threats should be implemented as destroying conventional forces just wont do. And how can you prepare for something you dont know what you are up to? Thats why I think posible war (althrow I dont belive it will heppen) can have its ups and downs and last longer than most people expect.Either way I think we can agree that land operations are out of the question witch was my point.

I agree conventional land operations will be out of the question. A massive air and sea launched attacked however supported by special forces...

The US's goals I imagine, will be to limit or completely destroy Iran's offensive capabilities and nuclear technology IF any strike ever occurs.

I agree with you up to a certain point, but you aree missing one point here. Irans missiles are (at least from what I have read) old Iraq SCUDs. Iran has being extensevly coorperating with N.Korea on BM programs and they have more updated missiles with mutch improved CEP (200m CEP) according to western sources based on last meassurment from last Iraq rocket excercises witch means they can strike their targets more accurately and besides they have mutch mutch more of them than Iraq.
For the search part half of US airforce and special forces did no menaged to find mobile SCUD lounchers in desert, tell me what are their chances in rouged terrain of Iran? And if they can not find it what does it matter that refuling the rocket last 1 hour?
Besided Iran has thousend of missiles (some of witch are solid fuled - later Sahab-3 and some others) and no Patriots stand chance against it. So with thousends of missiles with enought accuracy what chanches do US solders have in Iraq or Afganistan?

How many missiles could Iraq launch in GW2? It had just as many if not more than in GW1, yet how many did they launch?

It is pointless comparing US ability to hunt mobile launchers in 1990/91 to now. The US was not adequately prepared for such a threat in GW1. It is MORE then prepared now, which is why Iraq was reduced to firing Silkworm missiles at land targets. A hopeless gesture at best...


What makes you think Iran will be any different? They don't possess any more than Iraq did in 1990 yet what effect did the BM launches have? They spurred on America (and others) capability to find and destroy them. They had NO tactical effect whatsoever and the only strategic effect they had was to spur America on to develop capabilities to marginalise them completely.

Medium range ballistic missiles are not a tactical capability. They are an attempt to gain cheaply, that which is exceeding difficult, genuine strategic strike capability, which is why they are so popular with Dictators and others who suffer from severe cases of "small man" syndrome...

And what protection else that patriot US posseses that can protect US bases in Iraq you are talking about?

I wonder. They are only having rockets and mortars fired at them every single day in Iraq and yet are not suffering "carnage". What possible defences could they have?

Bunkers my friend, Patriot PAC-3, SM-2/3, perhaps a pre-production THAAD system or 2, perhaps another system or 2 we aren't aware of here in the world of open source data...

Again with iniabillity to destroy those missiles and enought accuracy (SCUD-D according to western officials have 50m CEP) Iran has means to destroy oil facilities if choses to.

If it can I hope you mean? Iran didn't show much tactical genius in the Iran/Iraq war... However, the more successful Iran becomes, the more aggressive America will become. IF pushed too far. Who knows? America has a few more ballistic missiles than Iran...

Perhaps but in either cases it is something you can not underestimate.

I don't. I freely admit, I expect Iran will be a much "tougher nut to crack" than Iraq was, for any number of reasons.

I still think any strike will be as one sided as all the rest have been since GW1...

And jet asymetric warfare is the basis of Iran defences and has coused in Iraq death of nearly 4000 US troops and 30 000 wounded. I think you are under-estimating situation.. like its all black and white.

No, you are underestimating American air power's ability to STRIKE. Do you seriously think that occupying a Country and fighting a land based insurgency for over 4 years, whilst trying to re-build the country you've overrun, in ANY way resembles an air and sea strike where you have NO intention of invading? What assymetric tactics are you thinking of that Iran could possibly employ against the bombers, fighter jets and cruise missiles that will be the backbone of such a strike?

American's in Iraq have predominantly suffered casualties from, IED's, EFP's and "ambush" situations. How exactly are these going to effect such a strike as is being considered here?

A SAM ambush perhaps. We've all seen over many years how effective SAM systems are in halting air attacks...

And would they love conventional fight with revoulutionary guards after massive balistic missile bombardment on every one of US bases in Iraq?

Not going to happen anyway, but I guess the revolutionary guards will be unscathed in the American air attacks of course...

 

[merocaine]

@aussie digger

I think you underestimating just how much difficulty the Iranians could cause.
Just think how much more difficult the Armys job would be if they had to content with modern manpads and anti tank missiles, rather than shaped charges and mortars. That kind of threat would persist long after the Airstrikes had finished.

Everyone is expecting a airstike and bingo Iran gives up and decides to forget about its asperations to save its own ass. Remember this is'ent Saddam Hussain out to save his skin. There a whole political class and grass roots in Iran that is ready to die for the head guy, there lots of them, there well equiped, well organised, and very well prepared for assemetrical warfare.

For that reason I can see the US getting drawn into ground operations. Just that the ground operations would be happening in Iraq.

 

[funtz]

There a whole political class and grass roots in Iran that is ready to die for the head guy, there lots of them, there well equiped, well organised, and very well prepared for assemetrical warfare.

yes that is the point Iran is not a dictatorship, most of the people will oppose an opposing force to the death, massive land forces will face trained military personnel equipped with sophisticated weapons (anti tank, manpads) to make matters worse these attackers will have active local support and will attack randomly from heavily populated areas.

Do America and Allies want Iran to give up its nuclear program, period, no civil no military nothing?
If this is the aim it cannot be achieved without an attack, and how do you bomb a nuclear facility with storage of radioactive material.

On Iranian missiles it is common knowledge that they will have every technological element North Korea possessed (i don’t know how good they are at guidance technology of there missiles, however they have had Chinese help), and they will fire whatever they can at Israel (not that a conventional warhead will really achieve what the Iranians want, all that will do will be an Israeli strike on Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon).

Has anyone followed any online news about Iran’s capability of attacking US targets as a preemptive measure, really in case of an attack that would be the only option Iran has of doing whatever little damage they can do.

Will any defence analyst entertain me with the approximate knowledge of the status of Iranian military
- Iraninan ability to know where a US carrier is operating, that is the approximate position of a carrier group.
- Anti Ship Cruise missiles(yes/no)
- If yes, then its range and platform (land, sea, air)
- In case of a combat aircraft platform, the range of the Combat aircraft to identify a ship through its radar.
- Time it will take form launch to reach the target e.g a ship.
- Damage it can do to the target.
- Combat aircrafts which can slip past at low altitudes.
- Air to surface weapons.

 

[kato]

Will any defence analyst entertain me with the approximate knowledge of the status of Iranian military
- Anti Ship Cruise missiles.
- If yes, then its range and platform (land, sea, air)
- Time it will take form launch to reach the target e.g a carrier.
- Damage it can do to the target.
- Combat aircrafts which can slip past at low altitudes.
- Anti runway bombs.

Phew, big one. Excluding the various flavoured rumours of the experimental stuff, i'll do it for the missiles:

(but only because it can be somewhat hard to differ rumour for fact for Iranian missiles)

C-802
- method: ship-launched / shore-launched variants
- in service: 200+ (sources differ; Jane's 150+, SIPRI 260+)
- range/speed/warhead: 120 km / Mach 0.9 / 165 kg HE

C-801
- method: ship-launched / shore-launched
- in service: 125+ (SIPRI)
- range/speed/warhead: 40 km / Mach 0.9 / 165 kg HE

C-201 HY-2
- method: shore-launched variant only?
- in service: around 100 on 8-10 mobile launchers (FAS)
- range/speed/warhead: 100 km / Mach 0.9 / 500 kg HE

Sea Killer Mk1
- method: ship-launched
- in service: less than 10 remaining at most
- range/speed/warhead: 10 km / ? / 35 kg

FL-6 Fajr-e-Darya
- supposed Chinese Sea Killer development/copy
- method: helicopter-launched (SH-3D)
- in service: 110+ (SIPRI)
- range/speed/warhead: 20 km / ? / 70 kg (for Sea Killer Mk2)

FL-8 (TL-10)
- method: helicopter-/air-launched
- in service: 45+ (SIPRI)
- range/speed/warhead: 18 km / Mach 0.85 / 30 kg SAP

FL-9 Nasr (TL-6)
- method: ship-launched
- in service: 10+ (SIPRI)
- range/speed/warhead: 35 km / Mach 0.8 / 30 kg SAP

FL-10 C-701T / C-701R
- method: ship-launched
- in service: 40+ (SIPRI)
- range/speed/warhead: 25 km / ? / 30 kg SAP

In addition, domestic-produced AGM-65 could also probably be used in this role, as well as Toophan 2 (TOW-2A) from Cobra attack helos.

 

[funtz]

thank you kato for that hope someone else fills in the rest of the puzzle , by that information an preemptive attack on US carrier group/groups can be ruled out from the air.

 

[kato]

by that information an preemptive attack on US carrier group/groups can be ruled out from the air.

The most we'd see in a naval strike air attack would be suicidal F-4E pilots with Mavericks. Probably.

 

[funtz]

The most we'd see in a naval strike air attack would be suicidal F-4E pilots with Mavericks. Probably.

hmmm, if they can commit a lot of aircrafts with pilots high on patriotism, with a maverick that wont make any sense they needed something that could do severe damage to the carrier deck assuming they know where it is and then 2-3 make it to launch range, it might be better to damage some airplanes in Iraq if so many men and machines have to be sacrified.

 

[Aussie Digger]

@aussie digger

I think you underestimating just how much difficulty the Iranians could cause.
Just think how much more difficult the Armys job would be if they had to content with modern manpads and anti tank missiles, rather than shaped charges and mortars. That kind of threat would persist long after the Airstrikes had finished.

The insurgents already HAVE those sorts of weapons. Newer models are going to provide an incremental improvement in their capability at best.

What do you think the British special forces Hercules was shot down with several years back? An AK???

What was the "small hole" penetration in the side armour of the M1A1 that was discussed so much caused by?

The reason the insurgents will continue to use mortars and EFP/IED's, is that they can do so without having to directly confront military forces. Newer weapons might be used in a few more attacks now and then, but to suggest it's going to result in wholesale carnage is simply ludicrous.

It will be yet another threat that will be responded to. End of story.

Everyone is expecting a airstike and bingo Iran gives up and decides to forget about its asperations to save its own ass. Remember this is'ent Saddam Hussain out to save his skin. There a whole political class and grass roots in Iran that is ready to die for the head guy, there lots of them, there well equiped, well organised, and very well prepared for assemetrical warfare.

For that reason I can see the US getting drawn into ground operations. Just that the ground operations would be happening in Iraq.

I admit, this scenario is far less likely than the US attacking Iraq was in 2002.

If Iran did such a thing as you suggest, openly send large numbers of soldiers to fight the American's in Iraq, then Iran most certainly WOULD be attacked.

Levelled almost entirely I'd suggest...

 

[funtz]

The insurgents already HAVE those sorts of weapons. Newer models are going to provide an incremental improvement in their capability at best.

What do you think the British special forces Hercules was shot down with several years back? An AK???

What was the "small hole" penetration in the side armour of the M1A1 that was discussed so much caused by?

The reason the insurgents will continue to use mortars and EFP/IED's, is that they can do so without having to directly confront military forces. Newer weapons might be used in a few more attacks now and then, but to suggest it's going to result in wholesale carnage is simply ludicrous.

It will be yet another threat that will be responded to. End of story.

I admit, this scenario is far less likely than the US attacking Iraq was in 2002.

If Iran did such a thing as you suggest, openly send large numbers of soldiers to fight the American's in Iraq, then Iran most certainly WOULD be attacked.

Levelled almost entirely I'd suggest...

Well new weapons will not turn any tides as much as loosing the support of a majority of Iraqis sects will, however it will change the dynamics of the conflict, remember a few hinds felt very sad about not having countermeasures in Afghanistan. What is the situation with the US military and its allies in Iraq, all choppers loaded with countermeasures.

So far US military response to to IED bombings in Iraq is not one that will make Iraqis feel any safer.
2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.police/index.html
2005
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/28/iraq.main/index.html
2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6949013.stm


To me it seems that it is just as easy as then for a militant to load up his car with explosives and kill innocent people.

Firing a man portable SAM over low flying aircrafts/helicopters near a populated area or from a hidden location presents equal risk as firing a mortar rounds on an American base and running back into a populated area.

As for the C130, imagine a battlefield flooded with these weapons.

Iran will not supply too many manpads and anti tank missiles to militants that can be traced back to it, bringing the problem to its doors.

If Iran feels threatened with a conflict with USA that can not be averted, attacking US forces where it can, with all it has got (before all of its air bases, combat and non combat aircrafts, tanks and armored carriers, oil refineries, TV broadcast stations, radio broadcasting stations are bombed to stone ages, and its nuclear reactors dismantled) might be the only chance of doing what ever little damage they can to the forces of USA and allies in the middle east I think every one knows on the way US military operates and its capabilities by now, it’s shown live on CNN for heavens sake.

Addition of weapons, explosives, men, and money will only make the situation worse not better, for the US military in its bases may be not that much, for the people of Iraq the damage will be much more.

 

[Aussie Digger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6949013.stm

To me it seems that it is just as easy as then for a militant to load up his car with explosives and kill innocent people.

Precisely. This is a far easier and as shown, far more likely to "effective" method of attack, than trying to confront American etc forces directly.

Firing a man portable SAM over low flying aircrafts/helicopters near a populated area or from a hidden location presents equal risk as firing a mortar rounds on an American base and running back into a populated area.

Not quite. You need a relatively clear area in order to track said aircraft. A mortar just needs clear over head space. Second of all, you are not going to down many helo's before they start flying at altitudes that lessen the chances of MANPAD's being successful. Especially against insurgents who are trying to flee as quickly as possible, rather than fight.

As for the C130, imagine a battlefield flooded with these weapons.

It wouldn't be too different to now. Any threat will require a response and will get one. It's rather like a circle in concept.

If Iran feels threatened with a conflict with USA that can not be averted, attacking US forces where it can, with all it has got (before all of its air bases, combat and non combat aircrafts, tanks and armored carriers, oil refineries, TV broadcast stations, radio broadcasting stations are bombed to stone ages, and its nuclear reactors dismantled) might be the only chance of doing what ever little damage they can to the forces of USA and allies in the middle east I think every one knows on the way US military operates and its capabilities by now, it’s shown live on CNN for heavens sake.

Addition of weapons, explosives, men, and money will only make the situation worse not better, for the US military in its bases may be not that much, for the people of Iraq the damage will be much more.

I've no doubt they'd try, but people here seem to think there's a possibility Iran could DEFEAT America...

Absurd...

 

[Izzy1]

I've no doubt they'd try, but people here seem to think there's a possibility Iran could DEFEAT America...

Absurd...

Agreed.

Even Iran probably realises that it's only real option lies in using asymetric warfare tactics and supporting proxy conflicts across the region.

 

[funtz]

Precisely. This is a far easier and as shown, far more likely to "effective" method of attack, than trying to confront American etc forces directly.

Not quite. You need a relatively clear area in order to track said aircraft. A mortar just needs clear over head space. Second of all, you are not going to down many helo's before they start flying at altitudes that lessen the chances of MANPAD's being successful. Especially against insurgents who are trying to flee as quickly as possible, rather than fight.

It wouldn't be too different to now. Any threat will require a response and will get one. It's rather like a circle in concept.

I've no doubt they'd try, but people here seem to think there's a possibility Iran could DEFEAT America...

Absurd...

I have had no experience with manpads and I do not know the amount of time required at tracking a helicopter, my brother told me some - about stingers fired during Kargil, they were hidden in the reverse folds to the direction of the flight. I do agree with you, all that did was bring a change in tactics and the stingers were useless.

However in a possible Iran invasion, the Iranians might use there reach in Iraq to make sure that the US forces there face terrorists who are not trying to run away, so it will be better to be safe than sorry and ensure right now that such weapons cannot reach Iraq, for a possible invasion into Iran its better if the terrorists are fighting with assault rifles and grenade launchers.

However these are just my thoughts and I am sure that the guys on the field know a lot more about it, from here in Hazira (a god forsaken oil port) it seems as if the intelligence services in Iraq are not making significant inroads with regards to infiltrating the militant organisations whereas militants trained to make improvised explosives coming in from outside iran seem to be able to blend in with the local population and hide amongst them.

I do not think it’s about defeating Iran, it seems to be more about achieving the set goals of making sure Iran cannot make a nuclear payload and making the region filled with oilfields safer/more accessible, completely dismantling Iran’s nuclear program will require significant ground presence (numbers and time).

If people think US doesn’t have the troops required should check out the number of military men in Iraq + Afghanistan and the total strength of the US military personnel.

A conflict in Iran will see a rise in militant activity in Afghanistan and Iraq, even if Iran is not able to help them.

USA will be able to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program as and when they will decide to, all of the military technology they have developed is specifically aimed at defeating the very defense systems that Iran has acquired as protection, I would imagine military leaders in Iran will know this.

The aim might be to maximizing American losses and making sure the political and religious leaders are able to survive the conflict.

 

[Izzy1]

USA will be able to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program as and when they will decide to, all of the military technology they have developed is specifically aimed at defeating the very defense systems that Iran has acquired as protection, I would imagine military leaders in Iran will know this.

The aim might be to maximizing American losses and making sure the political and religious leaders are able to survive the conflict.

Would agree with that.

Ironically, I would add that one possible main benefactor from any attempted regime change could well be the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps itself. With the civilian politicians potentially discredited (even before air strikes, the present Government's economic policy is a joke) and the Clerics already on the back foot - the IRGC may well be the only viable political option left to replace them.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I have had no experience with manpads and I do not know the amount of time required at tracking a helicopter, my brother told me some - about stingers fired during Kargil, they were hidden in the reverse folds to the direction of the flight. I do agree with you, all that did was bring a change in tactics and the stingers were useless.

However in a possible Iran invasion, the Iranians might use there reach in Iraq to make sure that the US forces there face terrorists who are not trying to run away, so it will be better to be safe than sorry and ensure right now that such weapons cannot reach Iraq, for a possible invasion into Iran its better if the terrorists are fighting with assault rifles and grenade launchers.

However these are just my thoughts and I am sure that the guys on the field know a lot more about it, from here in Hazira (a god forsaken oil port) it seems as if the intelligence services in Iraq are not making significant inroads with regards to infiltrating the militant organisations whereas militants trained to make improvised explosives coming in from outside iran seem to be able to blend in with the local population and hide amongst them.

I do not think it’s about defeating Iran, it seems to be more about achieving the set goals of making sure Iran cannot make a nuclear payload and making the region filled with oilfields safer/more accessible, completely dismantling Iran’s nuclear program will require significant ground presence (numbers and time).

If people think US doesn’t have the troops required should check out the number of military men in Iraq + Afghanistan and the total strength of the US military personnel.

A conflict in Iran will see a rise in militant activity in Afghanistan and Iraq, even if Iran is not able to help them.

USA will be able to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program as and when they will decide to, all of the military technology they have developed is specifically aimed at defeating the very defense systems that Iran has acquired as protection, I would imagine military leaders in Iran will know this.

The aim might be to maximizing American losses and making sure the political and religious leaders are able to survive the conflict.

Agreed, Iran if it wished could no doubt (and is) influencing things on the battlefields in Iraq and probably to a lesser degree in Afghanistan. It is apparently doing so in Lebanon and Palestine, so it's quite obvious that it's preferred policy is confronting the "West" via proxies, rather than direct confrontation in of itself.

A few Youtube videos on American air and naval strike power can show WHY this is obviously so...

These discussions therefore should be based on how and why America would actually be attacking Iran. They are all hypothetical scenario's as nothing has happened yet and may not.

In my opinion, I doubt regime change would be the goal and hence ground forces involvement would probably be limited to special forces at most. Air and Naval power would be used to strike Iranian military and Government infrastructure, WMD and Nuclear facilities and Iranian economic interests with the goal being: "punish them enough til they start behaving themselves".

I'm sure Iran would retaliate in some fashion, ballistic missiles would probably fired at Israel and other Gulf Countries and Iran would probably ramp up assymetric tactics on the ground in Iraq and Lebanon etc. At the end of the day, it's going to be minor compared to the damage inflicted upon Iran herself and a de facto admission of America's success on the part of Iran, due to her obvious inability to anything more substantial...

 

[DarthAmerica]

Buying time is not a solution. You are assuming that we have the intelligence on all of their military/nuclear facilities. Intelligence has been wrong on many occasions as we have seen from the past.

It is indeed a solution to the immediate problem. You don't just stop with the attacks though. In the aftermath we would take advantage of the time to get regime change or reform in Iran. If it didn't work Iran could be dealt with again by whatever means was appropriate.

Also, it's not necessary to bomb all of their facilities. Just the critical nodes.

-DA

 

[funtz]

Ironically, I would add that one possible main benefactor from any attempted regime change could well be the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps itself. With the civilian politicians potentially discredited (even before air strikes, the present Government's economic policy is a joke) and the Clerics already on the back foot - the IRGC may well be the only viable political option left to replace them.

Might be, current ground realities of the political situation of Iran are as much of a mystery to me as that of USA.

These discussions therefore should be based on how and why America would actually be attacking Iran. They are all hypothetical scenarios as nothing has happened yet and may not.

The way I see it, this is about as complex as it gets.
-USA wants Iran to give up the nuclear enrichment, it doesn’t matter if they are for civilian use or military use, as it is sanctions are in place
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6205295.stm
USA has shown that it doesn’t think very highly of the effectiveness of these sanctions in crippling Iranian nuclear program and want stronger new sanctions:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggaOzrSUnGRJb_xBlntfgLsBHCPA

-Current government in Iran has made the nuclear technology a primary goal and will not be willing to negotiate in any way (I have seen Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on CNN enough times going on and on about it), as it is enriched uranium is a critical for both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons..

-Iran will not risk a conflict with Israel (which according some sections of the media is a nation Iran has sworn to wipe off this earth) even when the Hezbollah face a major assault, but will openly supply them with all it possibly can (money, weapons, training) which shows that a war is not what they wish for as opposed to the war crazy, one hand on the nuclear button image that Mr. G W Bush seem to be projecting(image of Mr. Ahmadinejad), as it is proxy wars are not something new, all nations utilize this tactics.
It also shows that Hezbollah and Syria might just sit tight even if a open military offensive is launched on Iran (because of Israel).
And that Israel might not do anything more than provide intelligence support, as that will make the conflict even more complex to handle in a Middle East backdrop.

-Israel has a well known policy of nuclear ambiguity when it comes to nuclear weapons, hence there is every chance that a nuclear Payload over Israel will Mean a Nuclear payload over Iran - no matter who does it and vice versa for a nuclear strike over Iran.
Hence Iran seems to be pursuing its nuclear weapons program to even out the conventional weapons threat and have a greater say in regional affairs, which the US seems to be hell bent upon denying them, in which case now is the best time to do it.

-The population of Iran has shown intense political activism in recent history.

- If a limited strike is carried out on some Iranian nuclear targets, infrastructure with out any solid proof of nuclear weapons manufacturing, Russia and China will not let economic sanctions be activated against Iran after the strike, both of these nations fully understand the role of energy in this ever changing world (more than military assets), and have active cooperation in central Asia, Iran is a major energy player in a zone that is "the hotbed".

-The very basis for a limited strike will be a belief that Iranian nuclear knowledge is at a stage where the program is self sustained and sanctions will not help at all,

-A limited strike will leave a tremendously popular government back in place with open oil and gas reserves and with the world having absolutely no clue about the state of nuclear program in Iran, something like North Korea.

 

[radiosilence]

It is indeed a solution to the immediate problem.

There is no immediate problem concerning Iran's nuclear program. The NIE estimates that Iran is is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.

You don't just stop with the attacks though. In the aftermath we would take advantage of the time to get regime change or reform in Iran.

The support for the Iranian nuclear program is overwhelmingly supported by the Iranian people. Any Strike would unite the people around the regime and believe what their govt. is telling them that the main threat to them comes from the US or U.S.-Israeli alliance.

Also, it's not necessary to bomb all of their facilities. Just the critical nodes.

Assuming you have the intelligence.

 

[DarthAmerica]

There is no immediate problem concerning Iran's nuclear program. The NIE estimates that Iran is is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon.

The support for the Iranian nuclear program is overwhelmingly supported by the Iranian people. Any Strike would unite the people around the regime and believe what their govt. is telling them that the main threat to them comes from the US or U.S.-Israeli alliance.


Assuming you have the intelligence.

So let me see. Wait, about a decade, while the Iranians refine their ability to produce nuclear weapons completely indigeonously and further disperse and harden their nuclear infrastructure? No thanks.

Also, who cares if the Iranians rally behind their leadership. People tend to do that. I wonder if they would feel that way about a month into having no power and living on rationing?

And we do have the intelligence. Enough to act. Unless you mean knowing everything. If we waited on that, we would never fight wars.

-DA

 

[radiosilence]

So let me see. Wait, about a decade, while the Iranians refine their ability to produce nuclear weapons completely indigeonously and further disperse and harden their nuclear infrastructure? No thanks.

There is no guarantee that a Strike will be successful, add to that the fallouts from a strike could be far worst than it is now in the region. They are other options that are worth pursuing.

Also, who cares if the Iranians rally behind their leadership. People tend to do that.

You speak of regime change, you can't do that without substantial support of the local population.

And we do have the intelligence.

Perhaps the neocons do but i never heard any of our intelligence people speak as confidently as you do.

 

[DarthAmerica]

There is no guarantee that a Strike will be successful, add to that the fallouts from a strike could be far worst than it is now in the region. They are other options that are worth pursuing.

You speak of regime change, you can't do that without substantial support of the local population.

Perhaps the neocons do but i never heard any of our intelligence people speak as confidently as you do.

Guarantee? This is war. There is no such thing as a guarantee. We do the risk assessments, impliment controls and go for it. If you are lucky things will MOSTLY GO AS PLANNED. Thats about all you can hope for. Your statements imply that unless everything is perfect, then it's best not to act. That kind of national indecisiveness will cost and has cost more lives than actually acting. As to the issue of other options. We have been pursuing other options against Iran since 1979. We are still pursuing other options today. But this is a discussion of war and planning for war. The latter occurs concurrently with the other options as a contigency.

Regime change does not require local support. Local populations could hate an external threat and their government at the same time. Do you think the population of the United States is friendly to Iraqi Terrorist? Of course not. But that didn't stop them from changing the U.S. Congress and the President having historically low popularity. You can also look into the President Kennedy assassination and President Nixon impeachment. Both were destroyed by kinetic and non-kinetic means during a war.

I don't know what intelligence people you are refering to but I have heard all kinds of professional opinions on Iran. I do have a very good idea of what the USA is capable of with the U.S. Military and I have no questions about the DoDs ability to utterly wreck Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure if ordered to do so by the President.

-DA